Dear NG Boardites,

I am searching for the legendary 512 Productions.

This web page and it's whimsical content was made by Ben Apgar.

The site was formerly at:
http://www.512productions.com/

512 Productions is still listed as part of the NG Network. It is, in fact, the first link in the NG network.

I am not sure if Ben has moved on to other projects, or merely relocated his web site. If anyone has any information as to how one may contact Ben, or his work now resides, please post to this bulletin board thread.

Old Boardite,
Ravanos

At 10/21/03 02:53 AM, HeinousDude wrote: Sign-up Date: 11/27/00

Wow. You ARE an old timer.

Yeah. Like that old.

I've been coming to NG since before I had an account, so technically, I've been about quite some time.

I've kept in touch with some folk via instant messaging, but a lot of the people I used to see here are seemingly MIA...

Dear Newgrounds Users,

Are any of the old-time posters still around? Obviously, I haven't been around much, and there's such a volume of users here it's hard for me to track the people with whom I once consorted here.

I'm curious to know. If you are present, please step forward.

Sincerely,
Ravanos

Yes indeed.

Tis much faster, especially on my crappy dial-up service. Before, loading these pages would lag me out. Now, it's nothing but smooth sailing-- five by five, in the pipe.

At 5/23/03 10:55 PM, clamgoddess wrote: hey, they have an xbox game for buffy? whoa i feel stupid now...lol... i wanna stab some vampires! (not spike, i love that guy, i was pissed that they killed him, but apparently hes going onto Angel next season, so all is well, i can pick up that show now that Buffy is done)

Spike is the shiznit.

I watch Buffy for the `tang.

The Matrix: Reloaded was all right.
Some very strange cinematography. Some weird transitions between high action and philosophical tangents. Definitely more SFX in this one, by far.

Just a suggestion-- not a spoiler...
Wait until after the credits have ended.

At 4/26/03 08:36 AM, FrostSpider wrote: Something in that information is wrong

Which information specificly, FrostSpider?

Dear Tom,

Where do you get your stevia from?

Sincerely,
Ravanos

STEVIA FACTS

* The Stevia leaf is 300 times sweeter than sugar.
* Stevia has no calories.
* Stevia contains magnesium, niacin, potassium, and vitamin C.
* Stevia can stabilize blood sugar levels.
* Stevia extracts comprise over 40% of the market for sweeteners in Japan.

The FDA's attempt to halt the use of Stevia began in 1986, with a raid on the warehouse of Celestial Seasonings, the popular tea brand. They were told they could no longer include Stevia in their herbal tea blends. In 1987, FDA inspectors began visiting other herb companies, telling them to stop using this "unapproved food additive". In 1991 came the official ban as the FDA declared Stevia "an unsafe food additive" and imposed an import alert.

Some in the health and natural products industry suspected collusion. The big pharmaceuticals who manufacture the artificial sweeteners like to play to win.

Might Stevia's many advantages threaten sales of laboratory-bred sweeteners? The Herb Research Foundation filed a Freedom of Information Act request for correspondence between the FDA and the manufacturer of NutraSweet regarding Stevia. The information was a year in coming, and identification of the company that instigated the FDA ban was blocked.

The American Herbal Products Association (AHPA commissioned its own professional review of the scientific literature on Stevia, peer-reviewed by several plant safety experts. They all agreed on Stevia's safety. The AHPA then petitioned the FDA to rescind the ban on Stevia, arguing that Stevia is a food with a long record of safety and not a food additive.

The FDA has all the studies, yet insists that there is insufficient evidence to approve Stevia as "generally recognized and regarded as safe." That leaves some wondering how it could be of questionable safety here in the US, yet of proven safety in Japan, where extensive research provided more sound scientific evidence of Stevia's safety than for most foods and additives, and convinced the Japanese government to approve Stevia for wide use.

While the FDA claimed that Stevia is a chemical food additive, the AHPA argued that the intent of Congress was never to regulate the natural constituents of food itself. The legislation was intended to apply only to chemical additives to food. Therefore Stevia, a natural plant used for food and medicine, and with a long history of safe use, should automatically be exempt from the lab tests required to test new food chemicals.

By this time the FDA's attempts to regulate herbs and nutritional supplements in general prompted the American public to write to their Congress. An avalanche of demand for continued freedom of choice and access to Mother Nature's medicine chest, the one humankind has used for millennia, resulted in the passing of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act in 1994 (DSHEA). This prevents the FDA from regulating herbs and botanicals under the guise of "food additives."

It is under the protection of DSHEA that Stevia can be used in the US, but only as a nutritional supplement. Consequently, US food processors cannot use Stevia as an ingredient in foods simply to sweeten as they can in Japan. Stevia and its extracts can be marketed only as dietary supplements, not as sweeteners, and any product listing Stevia as an ingredient can only be marketed only as a dietary supplement. Tea companies may once again add finely cut whole leaf Stevia to their tea blends, as long as they are marketed as health supplements. But your everyday herbal tea formulas cannot include Stevia, with the word "sweet" or "naturally sweet" on the box.

Stevia is found in some meal-replacement bars, protein powders and chewing gums touted for their health benefits.

Perhaps the FDA reasons that if you cannot suppress the item itself, the next best suppression is information on that item. (Still hard to comprehend book banning in the land of free speech and free choice.) In 1998 the FDA threatened the Stevita Company of Texas, which imports Stevia, with legal action for distributing books and literature about their products. The FDA's Compliance Officer also faxed the Stevita Company a letter requesting the destruction of 2,500 books he considered "offensive." The books in question featured information on Stevia's history and use, as well as scientific studies.

The Japanese have demonstrated over the last three decades that even highly refined Stevia extract is still safe. And they use Stevia to full advantage for their health, refined and otherwise. Anywhere you find high fructose corn syrup (or the many names of those hidden sugars) you find Stevia in Japanese products. Popular too is some combination of Stevia and sugar, which maintains that real sugar taste while reducing the sugar, calorie, and carbohydrate count by up to 75%. An added benefit is avoiding the problems associated with other sugar substitutes, while maintaining that all important, 'all natural' status.

(Much of the above paraphrased from an artcile by Laura Lee)

>>>

And yet, the FDA approves Suclarose.

Suclarose, aka the commerical name of Splenda... one in a number of many yucky "sugar substitutes."

It is not fully proven safe, nor has there been any long term human studies, nor hasit been shown to be safe for the environment.

Sucralose is produced by chlorinating sugar (sucrose). Chloronated sugar. Yep. That's right-- chlorine and sugar.

They say it passes through your body unabsorbed.

Nope. They can say that *legally*. In truth, much of it gets absorbed, and the effcts are terrible.

For more info on Splenda - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartame/message/13727

Finally!

At 4/8/03 09:52 PM, Kazuo_Kiriyama wrote: What do you disagree on that I agree on.

First and formost:
What are you basing your "annoyance" at the protesters on? Personal experience or second hand information?

At 4/8/03 09:41 PM, Kazuo_Kiriyama wrote: I guess it's easy to talk shit when you're sitting in front of a computer.

I'm not the one dodging the inquiry.

I think we agree on so many things, but you want to attack me cause I think a little differently, you might as well fight with everyone here why don't you?

I don't understand enough about you, Kazuo_Kiriyama. My questions are legit. Why not address them?

No answers to my questions, Kazuo_Kiriyama.
Oh well. I thought you were made of sterner stuff.
Alas...

also i want to know where this gif came from it looks real anyone know??

THe gif likely came from the movie Scanners or the Scanners series.

There were heads-a-poppin left and right in that movie.

At 4/7/03 11:53 PM, _Berserker_ wrote: That is the biggest misconception I've seen yet with this war: that being anti-war is unpatriotic and unsupportive of the troops. REMEMBER: You can still support the troops, but NOT support the war.

That's a shame that people are ignorant of that fact.

I'm fairly certain that the vast majority of the war protesters want to see American troops dead.

Though, once again, support is kind of a subjective term.

"Supporting troops" is very different than "be concearned about the well being of the lives of troops."

I am concearned about the individuals engaged in war. I don't want to see people dead.

However, beyond my immediate circle of friends, family, and contacts, I haven't actively contributed to the morale or well being of the soliders engaged in this war.

But I'm not overly zealous one way or the other.

At 4/7/03 10:15 PM, WadeFulp wrote: So protestors need to realize the majority of the country supports the war and they are out voted. So basically they are being a bunch of sore losers throughing a pissy fit.

Devil's Advocate, Wade...

Appeal to Popularity (argumentum ad populum)...
A proposition is held to be true because it is widely held to be true or is held to be true by some sector of the population. This fallacy is sometimes also called the "Appeal to Emotion" because emotional appeals often sway the population as a whole.

Again, back to my analogy of the segregated South. The vast plurality of the population believed blacks were subhuman, and didn't deserve the same rights as whites did. It wasn't a very intelligent (read: logically valid) point of view. But it was accepted as "right."

Just because the majority of the population believes something to be right or just, it does not necessarily make it so.

If they really want to make a difference they need to campaign and try to educate people about their views and try and get them to support candidates that reflect their views.

Unfortunately, by the time Bush's term of office is up, the war will be long over.

Too bad,
so sad.

Back to my point:
Protesters who don't know what they're protesting, or why they are protesting, are really discredits to their causes. They're not educated. The end result means that, as a mob, they may be effective, but as an individual not genuine and couldn't argue their way out of a paper bag.
On the flip side of the coin, a good number of the masses love acting patriotic, paying lip service by saying "we support our troops," when (in actuality) they don't really do anything to support the troops. They don't change their lifestyle, or send care packages, or write letters, or work on a community project that actually would benefit the troops overseas. They do nothing beyond talk about how dead to rights "just" America is (mind you, being just as uneducated as the protesters about their assumed point of view).

So in conclusion they must just be doing it to get attention for themselves and they don't really care about the war deep down.

The squeaky wheel gets the oil, so to speak. By drawing attention to a person, group, cause, you get exposure. With exposure, you then have a platform to get your point of view across to the masses.

Unfortunately, the opposing point of view is the government on many levels, popular opinion, and by default, the major media.

Sucks for them then.

Perhaps the only avenue they have is to go to radical extremes. While not right for the easy and efficent functioning of people's day to day lives, they get noticed.

At 4/7/03 10:02 PM, Kazuo_Kiriyama wrote: Ravanos, you make me sad.

Too bad,
so sad.

But you must be aware of one thing,

I am aware of many things.

you aren't hurting anyone but yourself here.

A petitio principii argument-- that statement assumes I am hurting myself by virtue of my argument, which is not necessarily the case.

You may think what you just did will make you look really smart and really cool,

You're also assuming that I'm doing this to look "smart" or "cool," or that I desire to be.

but it merely exposes you for the fragile, insecure man that you really are.

First and foremost, I can give two figs about what anyone else thinks about me. Especially here. I'm not writing here to win a popularity contest. I don't need to impress anyone on these BBS boards.

Also, I'd really prefer it if you referred to the questions in my posts. I'm trying to go somewhere with how this conversation has evolved. I think my questions are perfectly valid, and yet you see them as a character attack.

On the contrary, you're not attacking my point of view. Instead, you're attempting a character assassination upon me. You're attacking the person who holds the point of view rather than resolving the issue at hand... argumentum ad hominem.

Your opinion doesn't matter.
I'm not saying that to be a dick. Let me explain:
Your post just caught my eye, not because of the point of view you chose to take, but because of the method of your argument. Your semantics were acerbic. The majority of what you wrote was supported in a flimsy manner with lots of self important fluff stacked around it.

In the end, you're the one who kicked off this little bashfest off by acting in a manner which was both immature and insulting.

The real kicker is that you're upset because people are acting in an obtrusive manner by stating their opinion, and you yourself have done the same thing.

You also have asserted yourself with an air of authority that you don't rightfully have. Have you personally dealt with individual blocking or obscuring your path-- or does the concept merely churn your stomach? Have you researched this phenomena at all-- or was it something you just read about or saw on the news that you thought would be clever to comment on? Or was this merely a case of intellectual (sic) osmosis-- something you overheard somewhere else and thought would be a convenient something-or-other to post on this BBS?

These are all questions I have. And, since you opened yourself up in this little forum, I'd like to know. It helps me understand your point of view and where you're coming from a bit better. In this way, I seek more information about this topic and your views before drawing any hasty conclusions about what your thoughts are on this matter.

Even if this was a well intended post about something as simple as protesters loitering, the passion with which you argued your point of view and the choice of words made your motives somewhat suspect in my mind.

I'll say something that will also make me seem smarter than your average bear. Onus probandi. In Latin, it means "the burden of proof." The burden of proof lies with the accuser. Since you're the accuser, you're the one who is responsible for providing the proof in the argument. You have to present your case, provide facts, and answer questions. If you don't, then your argument is also suspect.

And Seeders, until you get a PhD in psychology and you sit down with me and actually talk to me, I don't think you're qualified to make statements about how "fragile" and "insecure" I am-- especially since you know me by, oh, five posts. It would be interesting for you to actually sit down and psychoanalyze my previous posts, but you're only here to hack up the collective sputum of the common man on these boards, stating a blank check opinion while you have nothing in the balance.

I hope one day that you will realize the error of this and apologize as I had. Until then, you have no right to speak to me unless it’s an act of an apologetic nature.

See, Chumbo. Mind if I call you Chumbo? You're assuming an air of authority where you have none. This is a public message board. You made a comment. I responded. You can hate my guts all you want. Shake your fist in the air. Post pictures. Say "I don't care! This conversation is over!" This still does not change the facts of the conversation, or the fact that you ignored my questions.

Now, I can type at you all I want. That's my right. You're not obliged to respond. That's your right. In fact, I don't expect you to. But at the very least, I have to try.

I'm not willing to placate myself, or curb conduct on account of your belief of you being right and me being wrong. Personally, I think asking for an apology is absurd. I also think apologies should be offered freely, and only when they're genuine.

Just do the right thing and accept my apology. Trust me, it’ll make you feel better later than insulting me will make you feel now.

Not to mention, again you're assuming the role of a false authority figure. Telling me what I should do, how I should feel, what the best course of action is...

Scroll back, review my questions. If you'd like, I'll collect them and repost them.

Trust me. It will make you feel better.

At 4/7/03 08:36 PM, Kazuo_Kiriyama wrote: Ravanos, you and me need to have a talk.

I suppose a type will have to do, since we've never talked to eachother before.

I said I wouldn't reply to the other thread

And yet here you are, replying to this thread.

but now it's time that you to do the one thing you have yet to do and that's listen and understand everything I have to say, word for word, without once twisting my comments.

Sorry. I didn't get that... I wasn't paying attention.

Now, I have no idea what you have against me but I don't take well to your insults.

Have I insulated you? I thought I was playing devil's advocate. I've responded to your posts. And yet, you have yet to respond to my posts.

I said I didn't like people who stand in the street and block traffic

No one does.
But you were criticizing much more than mere obstruction of traffic.
You were calling people names, and labeling their stance (in a sweeping generalization) as useless.

I don’t come here day after day looking for a fight

Good. If you did, you'd lose.

and acted all high and mighty.

I don't act. I am.

I never ONCE insulted you

But you insulted others, and my sense of fair play.

or called you out

This isn't a western.

you have the unmediated gall to call me a chicken

Don't start something you don't intend to finish.
By the way-- you haven't answered my question.
Hint hint.

I've doing my best to hold my anger

Is that anything like holding your water?

I'm not asking you to agree with me, I'm not asking you to be my friend, and I'm not asking you to even like me.

I wasn't planning on doing any of these things, wether you asked or not.

At 4/7/03 06:34 PM, Kazuo_Kiriyama wrote: I AM NO LONGER GOING TO POST ANY REPLIES TO THIS TOPIC!!!!

It takes a tough man to make a tender chicken.

Ravanos "You Need To Go Back To School" Ravanos

At 4/7/03 06:11 PM, WadeFulp wrote:

I'm sure it will be worth every drop of their oil to pay us back for freeing them from Saddam. As well as paying us back they can sell more oil to rebuild their country and prosper. Poverty will be a thing of the past for the Iraqi people. No one will have to starve any more.

Hey! It's the American Dream!

At 4/7/03 05:24 PM, Kazuo_Kiriyama wrote: Don't call the troops pawns.

That's what they are. There's a chain of command, hierarchy, higher ups, all the way up to the top, with agendas political or otherwise.

Merriam-Webster defines a pawn as:
one that can be used to further the purposes of another

They have selflessly put their lives in the line of fire to fight what they believe in

Merriam-Webster also defines selfless as:
having no concern for self; unselfishly

You must remember that the vast majority joined the armed forces not for this specific war or this specific military campaign, but to joined the armed forces.

They have no choice as to where they go or what they do in the military. What wars they choose to fight or not fight. They are not "free agents" or can't elect for or decline "specific belief based missions."

Being in the military is a career. Fighting is their job. They are educated and paid for this job. And, unfortunately, it's a hazardous job with a major health risks.

otherwise, they wouldn't be there.

They do what they're told. They've voluntarily given up their right to choose wether to be at peace or wether to fight, and to a certain degree, wether they live or die (if such a position demands such).

That's the case wether the war is just or not.

And sometimes, it's not what you do, but what you don't do, like talk shit about the troops.

Troops out on the field don't get Fox News or CNN. They don't see or hear the protests. The higher ups wouldn't let them see anything that would threaten their morale. Certainly, the solders in the heat of battle certainly more worried about doing their job and not getting their collective asses shot to hell.

And, you still didn't answer my question, Kazuo.
You're doing a great deal of talking, but artfully avoiding the entire point of my post:
What are you doing for the troops of the United States and their families at home?
Have you ever donated your time or money to work at a veteran's hospital?
Have you ever started a letter writing campaign to the troops out in the desert to directly boost their morale?
Have you even pondered the possibilities of you directly making a difference in someone else's life?

Talk is cheap.

You're not a patriot just because you put an American flag outside your door, or follow the jingoistic masses, nodding your head, watching TV and being an arm chair general, all the while declaring "America is good. Protesters are bad. Don't talk smack."

That's because real patriots don't just say. They do. They act and unselfishly sacrifice their time and effort towards an end.
And not because a person tells them to, or commands then to, or forces them to, or majority dictates it's the best thing to do.
Rather, because they themselves believe in America, and the spirit of the Constitution, in these times. And, in their hearts and minds, as individuals, act upon those beliefs. Without coercion. Selflessly.

At 4/7/03 03:47 PM, Kazuo_Kiriyama wrote: All of you protester bitches need to fuck off!

Belligerence.

That's not a valid method for constructing a rational argument.

I'm just saying you're fucking annoying,

Have you been personally accosted, blocked, or harassed by a protester on the street?

One day, the majority (Yeah, I said MAJORITY! Most of us can't stand you.) are going to get sick and tired of playing nice.

Just because something widely believed by the majority to be correct, it does not make that majority any more or less correct.

Slavery, for example, was a widely accepted practice, as were the segreation laws in the South.

Both were morally reprehensible, but supported by the majority.

"Majority rule" is just another way of saying "might makes right"-- which, by virute of itself, does not.

:The nation will come together in unity to get you off of the damn streets so we can get back to work because you've made your point and it has changed nothing.

Ghandi was an anarchist.

And the fact that you know about the protesters, and are so outraged by them, and are reacting to them is atestament to the protester's success.

:Don't make the entire nation suffer because you're not getting your what you want; that's just selfish.

Would's call the exercise of a person's or group of people's freedom of speech a sufferance upon the entire nation.

It's certainly not selfish to have an opinion, or voice it.

Thus the Right of Free Speech.

America is not an isolationist, totalitarian, fascist state.

And if THAT didn't convince you, chew on this. Do you really think you'll be remembered as great people? Huh? 30 years down the road, will they see you on TV and say that you were the nations heroes?

A hero ain't nothing but a sandwich.

In thirty years, they won't talk about this. People will forget. How often do we hear about the dead and fallen in Vietnam aside from war time?
War is ugly. So is death. There's no glory in either.
I'm sure many disfigured and dismembered veterans who can't make ends meet now and fatherless children will tell you the same.
But hey, at least in this war, the people in it signed their names to a sheet of paper and sold their souls to the government so they could be pawns on a chess board.
In 'Nam, they were drafted.

By the way, Kazuo-- What are you doing to support our troops?

At 4/7/03 03:41 PM, poop_face wrote: raped one of his many wives in the street and then fed her to his dogs

Islamic fundamentalists think dogs are filthy animals-- tabbo, in fact-- to the point where they won't have them or keep them as pets.

Anyone here know of any good vector drawing programs?

Do you think far to many movies on NewGrounds suck?

Have you had enough?

I suggest you come to our side. Come to the dark side.

Here, we celebrate talent. We reward the good, and punish the impudent.
Here, we selectively assassinate the weak so the strong may thrive.
Here, we knock down the walls of mediocrity.

Some would call us quality control.
Others would call mean and bitter.

We are the darkness, and we shall devour.

Are you a member of the Darkness?

An Old School NG Club/Crew, and the one of the first BLAM Guild on NG. Founded 3/13/01.

Vote wisely...

Ravanos
Chief Judicar and Grand High Heiroarch of G.o.D.

Family Guy has been one of my favorite cartoons for quite some time now. :)

Glad it's on Cartoon Netwrok.

Enyone here ever see the delected pornographic scene floating around for the Family Guy? It deserves to be on Cartoon Network.

At 3/29/03 10:21 AM, FatCatScandal wrote: actually not many people now this, but.. according to some of the bible.. being gay isn't wrong.. but acting on it is.

Right. Loving other men is not a problem.
Being sewually attracted to men is, because "women were made for men." Therefore, homosexuality is "wrong."

Interesting facts:
Oral sex, anal sex (FDA), any any other sex than man on top/woman on bottom is considered Sodomy, and therefore is a sin.
Masturbation is a sin.
Birth control (any type of contraceptive) is a sin.
Premartial sex is a sin.
Nudity is a sin.
You are born sinful, and only through the word of God can you be saved.

Therefore, acting on your natural sexual desires, be they hetero or homosexual, is a sin-- unless you are married and Christian.

Also.. alot of pagan religions have the same sort of views, they all take responability for there actions..

Right. The Law of Three. Karmic retribution.

An' harm none, do what thou will.

At 3/29/03 10:21 AM, FatCatScandal wrote:

Which is pretty much my philosophy, as well.

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity."

-Thomas Jefferson

At 3/26/03 04:14 PM, DirtyGerman wrote: go download this audio, and listen for yourself.

OK.

At 3/26/03 04:14 PM, DirtyGerman wrote:

this is why we need this war, and also why iraq needs this war.

Really? One opinated person's comments is why we need a war. Interesting.

At 3/26/03 04:14 PM, DirtyGerman wrote:

if this doesnt put to rest your doubts then your as dumb as the girl in the audio clip.

WOAH! You're so TOTALLY right! I mean, if the end result of one person's opinion is the same as someone else's, even though they're two separate individual people who have different justifications and opinions and practically nothing in common THEY MUST BE EXACTLY ALIKE! Wow-- you really got me-- comparing ONE SINGLE PERSON to thousands of other people in different countries with differing political views to someone of a deficient intelligence level who is uninformed and not particularly eloquent!

A cop pulled me over once, and he was a real ass hole, therefore ALL COPS MUST BE ASSHOLES.

Since there was this guy once who was a man and a rapist, ALL MEN MUST BE RAPISTS!

Hitler was German, and he was very bad, therefore ALL GERMANS MUST BE BAD!

Listen-- unless something is a defining characteristic of a group or a system of belief, the responsibility of that individuals actions falls solely on the individual.

At 3/26/03 04:14 PM, DirtyGerman wrote: she is a prime example of 98% of all people that protest stuff.

OK... I asume you have statistical data to back up your views.
When did you start working for the census bureau?

At 3/26/03 04:14 PM, DirtyGerman wrote:

:they really dont know why they protest,

I'm sure none of the protesters know why they are there. Nope. None.

At 3/26/03 04:14 PM, DirtyGerman wrote: they just jump on the band wagon and try to fit in.

Now, I'll agree on one thing with you. Perhaps some of these protesters are having a viceral, emotional, subjective reaction to the concept of invasion, boot-to-ass, and death that is part and parcel of war.

Too bad,
so sad.

But I don't think that precludes the intelligent, well informed, rationally based protester who makes a conscious choice for whatever reason to disagree with the war-- economic, political, philosphical, or personal.

At 3/27/03 03:36 AM, hitmanyr2k wrote: Korea is getting more bold than any country.

I agree with you, 100%.